State v. Schultz

• Decision Date: 28 November 1927
• Docket Number: 20826.
• Citation: 261 P. 385,145 Wash. 644
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. SCHULTZ.

261 P. 385

145 Wash. 644

STATE v. SCHULTZ.

No. 20826.

Supreme Court of Washington

November 28, 1927

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, Lincoln County; Sessions, Judge.

Jake Schultz was convicted of concealing mortgaged property to hinder, delay, or defraud mortgagee, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Edward M. Connelly and Milton S. Hanauer, both of Spokane, for appellant.

Joseph H. Johnston, of Davenport, and W. W. Zent, of Spokane, for the State.

FRENCH J.

The appellant was informed against by the prosecuting attorney of Lincoln county; the charging part of the information being as follows:

'That the said Jake Schultz, on or about the 20th day of November, 1926, at the county of Lincoln, state of Washington, then and there being, did unlawfully and feloniously, being the mortgagor in a certain chattel mortgage dated and entered into April 27, 1926, wherein the said Jake Schultz was mortgagor and the Washington Grain &amp Milling Company, a corporation of Reardon Wash., was mortgagee, said mortgage covering and including one sorrel mare, 8 years old, weight 1200 pounds, one sorrel mare, 9 years old, weight 1200 pounds, and colt, together with all increase thereto, the said Jake Schultz with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud the mortgagee, Washington Grain & Milling Company, a corporation, did conceal a part of the personal property, to wit, one bay mare colt with white face one bay horse colt with white face, covered by said mortgage contrary to the laws of the state of Washington,' etc.

A demurrer to this information was overruled and the action of the lower court in thus overruling the demurrer is assigned as error. We think the information is sufficiently clear, definite, and explicit 'to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended.' State v. Womack, 4 Wash. 19, 29 P. 939; State v. Knowlton, 11 Wash. 512, 39 P. 966; State v. Shuck, 38 Wash. 270, 80 P. 444.

It is next assigned as error that the court permitted W. W. Zent to assist the prosecuting attorney in the trial of the case. The record shows that Judge Zent's appearance was by and with the consent of, and at the request of, the county prosecutor. A reading of the case of State v. Heaton, 21 Wash. 59, 56 P. 843, upon which counsel for appellant seem to chiefly rely, indicates that the facts in that case easily distinguish it from the instant case. Prosecuting attorneys are permitted to have such assistance as they may desire in the actual trial of cases by and with the consent of the trial court. State v. Elswood, 15 Wash. 453, 46 P. 727; State v. Hoshor, 26 Wash. 643, 67 P. 386; Stern v. State Board of Dental Examiners, 50 Wash. 100, 96 P. 693; State v. Miller, 80 Wash. 75, 141 P. 293; State v. Storrs, 112 Wash. 675, 192 P. 984, 197 P. 17; State v. Orcutt, 123 Wash. 651, 212 P. 1066.

The next assignment of error has to do with the admission of the testimony of a deputy sheriff. The question here raised was decided adversely to appellant's contention in State v. Dersity, 121 Wash. 455, 209 P. 837, 215 P. 34.

Complaint is made of the following instruction:

'You are instructed, members of the jury, that, before you can find the defendant guilty in this case, it is necessary for the state to prove to your satisfaction, beyond a reasonable doubt, that in Lincoln county, Wash., on or about the 20th day of November, 1926, the defendant unlawfully and feloniously concealed part of the personal property, consisting of two colts, or either one thereof covered by and included in a certain chattel mortgage

...